Grounds for invalidating a shareholder agreement Chat with slut

Posted by / 13-Oct-2019 02:21

Disagreeing with the lower court, the Court of Appeal held that, for the purpose of establishing reliance, it was not sufficient that a litigant took into account the risk that its opponent’s evidence would be believed by the judge, although it did not itself believe the evidence.Briggs LJ noted that it is an everyday feature of litigation for parties to be “influenced” by their opponent’s factual pleadings in that sense when assessing whether to settle and at what level.The EAT said that tribunal proceedings provided an employee with a practical alternative to settling a claim so there was no “absence of practical choice” in this case and he was not entitled to rely on a plea of economic duress.However, the assertions by the EAT in Sphiks, that the tribunal provided a are no longer sustainable.The insurer commenced proceedings seeking rescission of the settlement agreement (or damages for deceit in the alternative).It alleged that it had been induced to enter into the agreement by the employee’s fraudulent misrepresentations, in the form of statements as to his condition in his pleadings and witness statements.

In that sense, they influenced the insurer’s decision to settle on the terms it did.Background An employee brought proceedings against his employers in respect of a workplace injury.The employers’ insurer conducting the defence admitted liability but disputed quantum, primarily on the basis that the employee had exaggerated the extent of his ongoing condition.The issue in the present case was the extent to which the position is different where, as here, the representation was not merely false but could later be shown to have been fraudulently made.In holding that the innocent party was nevertheless bound by the agreement, the Court of Appeal’s decision shows the limits, in this context, of the principle that “fraud unravels all”.

It confirms that a fraudulently advanced case will not necessarily entitle a defendant to rescind a settlement agreement – particularly in cases where the evidence suggests that, at the time of settlement, the defendant had at least some indication of the possibility of fraud and therefore settled “with its eyes wide open”.